The attack on the Pentagon

[Andrew Johnson]

For anyone who is interested in what this may be building up to, it is worth checking out what the truth behind the famous JFK Zapruder film is.

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/index_old_c ontent.html

(this is a super analysis - and likely what we could expect over the coming months - esp now we have CGI in the hands of a powerful elite)

In summary:

1) It was released about 1 year after the assasination (and was not publicly shown until years later.

2) It showed Kennedy's car in continuous motion.

Close analysis of the film seems to show it was doctored very skillyfully - probably to add misinformation into the game. i.e. Witness in Dealey Plaza described how Kennedy's car stopped at the time shots were fired, then accelerated. Releasing the Zapruder film neatly discredited those witnesses and, by inference, there assertions about shots fired - how can statements be taken seriously from such "unerliable" witnesses?

This is the game, I think...

[ConspiracyTheorySceptic]

Welcome aboard, State of Grace.

I, too, have had to put up with abuse and scorn for daring to question the official version or versions of the Truth Seekers' beliefs.

If you look back along this thread, you will see I have posted a number of sites that argue that there is incontrovertible evidence of a large airliner crashing into the Pentagon, and scientific and technical explanations that explain the collapse of WTC 1, 2 and 7 without postulating the use of explosives. I regularly find that the evidence I put forward is dismissed or scorned rather than debated.

Like you, I believe the real cover-up is of the intelligence failures prior to 9/11, and the questionable reasons for invading Iraq.

It is possible to be antagonistic to US policies and yet be sceptical about the conspiracy theories surrounding the events of 9/11.

CTS

[John White]

You want to talk about intelligence failures?

Good!

Start talking about intelligence failures, start threads on intelligence failures, bring forward information pouring out like a seive about intelligence failures

But, so far, thats not what youve done

No, so far youve simply (attempted) to hack at whatever you find here not to your liking

But for your inference that it is damaging for the fabric of a free and democratic society to talk about certain issues, well thats letting you down badly

You need to open your peepers to a few things:

1) Everyone here has an individual balance of probability

For example, you want to postulate that a plane hit the pentagon? Its not satisfactoraily proven, but that may very well be the case. So what?

That doenst answer your own concern about intelligence failures: and it doenst make skyscrappers magically fall down contarary to the entire of the design performance history of these structures and basic common sense

Put forward your concerns and lets get research and consenus on them

So everyone doesnt agree? Again so what? what are you, a control freak?

2) This entire site is dedicated to conspiracy skepticism: the conspiracy skepticism of a wild theory sold as fact with no credible evidance and no examination of primary evidance within hours, even minutes, of the events concerned unfolding a little over four and a half years ago: a conspiracy skepticism dedicated to saving lives and returning balance to the affairs of the world before, God help us, we all end up in a right mess....

We know the death toll on 911 itself, and its horrendous: do you know the death toll in Afganhistan and Iraq? No? Well thats becuase our own damn government refuses to release them...we are talking about human life here and War crimes against humanity, and to expose that we must expose the deception used to justify that carnage

So on the whole:

3) Grow up: and that includes tolerating people's initial expression of exasperation when they appear to be encountering the same tired "dont want to even look at it" attitude that would put a religous zealot to shame

Your not like that? Fantastic news: lets get to work then

I look forward to your first thread exploring intelligence failures...

[brian]

stateofgrace posted this -

Here is really what happens when a plane made of aluminium slams into a concrete wall at 500mph.

http://gprime.net/video.php/planevsconcretewall

It raises the obvious question - then what penetrated the inner rings of the Pentagon?

Perhaps he would be gracious and give us his views.

[ConspiracyTheorySceptic]

Pikey wrote on May 13th:

[kbo234]

You have already been told that Prof. Stephen Jones carried out laboratory tests that disproved the major assertions in F.R.Greening's paper.

His (Greening's) article, by the way, reads like a most desperate attempt to construct wobbly arguments to support an erroneous pre-determined outcome (think evidence for Iraq's WMD's).

Why don't you read some of Jones' work and criticise that? He is the person presenting real hard scientific evidence for controlled demolition rather than the flaky assertions put forward by the 911 Commission (when they were not ignoring an issue altogether [like WTC7]). Jones is the guy who you are disagreeing with.

.......but you keep repeating the same old stuff without addressing any counter arguments, don't you?
........you are just a messer on this site. You show no genuine interest in engaging with any difficult issue yourself. You just keep referring to the same old discredited sources.

[Hazzard]

Im sorry CTS, but whenever inteligence failure comes up, my warning lights blare. You have to be ignorant to the facts in order to come to this conclusion.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner. America was a republic, but since 9/11 thier leaders and ours have been pushing this democracy thing like no other time.

[ConspiracyTheorySceptic]

kbo234 writes:

[John White]

Not strictly the right thread for this, but Ill pick this up:

Assume you mean this link CTS:

http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/

Ive looked at this aluminium angle, and all its got going for it is magic wand status at best: this is aluminium from the same plane that "vaporised on impact" and dont even start on the absolutely apocalyptic qualities being attributed to the equally magic "just keeps burnin!" aviation fuel that apparently ran all the way down to the lobby whilst doing every other thing you can imagine whilst at the same time firefighters radio conversations are on record as saying the fire was small and only needed a couple of hoses to contain...

Aluminium isnt Alien blood like in the movies...thats if there was any in sufficient quanities to get hot enough and make a difference in a structure with massive redundancy

And this hogwash about the towers not being designed to withstand a jet impact and subsequent fire....no, they were designed to withstand multiple jet impacts

A careful reading of this documetn shows a scenario constructed through a multitude of uncertainties that all hang on "the computer simulation showed it"

A computer simulation that has proved impossible to duplicate given the raw data obtainable and the model of which, guess what, is denied release for inependant verification

No, this just wont do: There is no credible thoery showing the collapse of the towers in the way that they did in the short time from impact that they did based soley on the impact of the planes

And yes, 911 commission: Lets talk building 7: same goes for you CTS

A 47 story steel skyscrapper collapses and in the minds of the public's recollection based on what they got from the media, most people still dont even know it happened...at least that Ive talked to: Im sure many others have found the same

Anyway CTS are you going to talk intelligence failure or not? That alone shows every indication of an inside job...and we got plenty of whup ass there too...

[kbo234]

[Pikey]

[brian]

Greening makes a claim he wants Jones to establish, how utterly ridiculous. If Greening has a hypothesis he is the one that should test it, verify it, then let others repeat or disprove it. That is the scientific approach, not making incredible claims then saying because one test undermines it this does not invalidate it and Jones should go on trying.

Anyone still searching for the philosophers stone or chasing moonbeams.

He also admits that his aluminium nonsense cannot be applied to WTC 7.

[ConspiracyTheorySceptic]

kbo234 writes:

[ConspiracyTheorySceptic]

[andrewwatson]

I have just got in from a trip to London to see the new version of Rick Siegel's shattering film 911eyewitness.

CTS, if you had sat in that cinema tonight, in the presence of a man who filmed the fall of the Twin Towers himself, and heard the MASSIVE explosions that preceded - by nine seconds - the fall of ALL THREE TOWERS, and saw the unmistakeable flashes of demolition charges in the superb slow motion close-up shots, and saw the pouring golden stream - not silver as aluminim would be - but gold as Thermite is - you would not be writing all this appalling nonsense.

As my respected colleague Andrew Johnson says: CHECK THE EVIDENCE!

[blackcat]

[Pikey]

CTS/SoG,

Thanx for responding to Brians question/one of the questions in my blog. I find your response to be one of conjecture, without any scientific basis whatsover. IMHO based on my knowledge and understanding of physicss and materials science your wrong!

Alao consider this:- when the Pentagon building was designed what standards of impact resistance would you have expected the authorities to specify for the building envelope?

Also for the record CTS/SoG you never responded to my second question:-

[Pikey]

CTS/Sog

What do you make of this:-

[ConspiracyTheorySceptic]

kbo234

Instead of abusing me, you may care to enter into a debate.

I have done a little research and I have found this site where people are debating the causes of the high temperatures and apparently molten metal found in the 70 ft-deep debris of the Two Towers after the collapses. It should be noted that a number of correspondents are sceptical of the claims made by Professor Stephen Jones:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&a ddress=125x62529#62532

From the same site, I have copied this excerpt, No 44 in the list, which shows that underground coal fires, starved of oxygen though they are, are yet capable of reaching temperatures of 1700 degrees celsius:

44. Maybe this will help you

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/enviro/EnviroRepubli...

Underground coal fire in Australia

Australia is the home of one of the world's few naturally burning coal seams, Burning Mountain Nature Reserve, in northeastern New South Wales. The burning coal seam extends from the main coalfields of the Hunter Valley.

The fire burns 30 metres underground, moving at the slow rate of one metre south every year. The lack of oxygen underground means the fire burns slowly, and with 6 km of burnt area, the fire is estimated to be about 5,500 years old.

The seam was once exposed to the surface, so it is possible a bushfire may have ignited it, scientists say. Sulphurous smoke comes from fissures in the ground, and sulphur is known to be capable of spontaneous combustion if it is heated.

The fire temperature reaches temperatures of 1,700°C deep beneath the ground. But the land above is also heated, and at the firefront reaches 350°C. The intense heat on the surface kills off vegetation, leaving a carpet of white sinter, alum and sulphur deposited on the surface through the condensation of the highly acidic gases.

CTS

[Ally]

What's the point of entertaining these trolls, they don't listen to a word said and it's obvious they are all in cahoots and just want to spew nonsense, have you checked IPs to see if it's the same twat?

[ConspiracyTheorySceptic]

kbo234

Here is some further evidence of the high temperatures that can be reached in fires occurring in confined spaces.

You may remember the Mont Blanc tunnel fire of 1999 in which a lorry carrying a load of flour and margarine caught fire and set off a disaster. The heat from this and from other combustibles became so high that vehicles - built from steel - melted.

Here is the link:

http://www.cfaa.ca/journal-2003-Spring-tunnel.html

Here is an excerpt from the report:
On that date, a truck with Belgian registry carrying large quantities of flour and margarine caught fire approximately half way through the tunnel. In the confined space, the fire quickly reached temperatures exceeding 1000 º Celsius, (1800º F.). Vehicles simply melted. The heat was so intense the cement lining started to shatter and the tunnel began to collapse. The fire raged for three full days before it could be brought under control. Thirty-nine people were killed, 25 trucks including two fire engines were destroyed as were eleven cars. 1200 meters of the concrete lining was destroyed or heavily damaged.

What do you think, kbo? After all, you are a scientist, and before you jump to conclusions, you should, surely, be willing to consider all the evidence and not just that put out by just one physicist, Professor S Jones.

The question is: was the molten metal seen at Ground Zero caused by thermite charges, or could there be some other explanation?

CTS

[Pikey]

CTS/SoG/Badger Kitten/Rachel North/A Sharp Major

Before you move on to another subject which is not relevant to this thread "Attack at the Pentagon" please address the question which you choose to ignore:-

[ConspiracyTheorySceptic]

piket writes:

[alkmyst]

CTS wrote:

[Pete J]

CTS -

No - this is not ok.

Have you ever sat at the end of a runway near an airport and watched an airliner land ?

Have you ever been to an airshow and watch a heavy airline approach the runway with it's gear up, carry out a low approach (at about 300 feet, not 12) and go-around for the crowd ?

In both cases they start their approach lined up with the runway at about 8 miles, slowed to minimum approach speed (about 1 third of cruise speed), flaps dangling down, wheels down and nose high attitude so the aircraft can be CONTROLLED.

If you fly any aircraft at high speed it is impossible to manoever without making enormous height and azimuth changes in response to very small control inputs.

Despite this, the official story proposes that an inexperienced pilot with almost no training on jets and certainly NO experience flying them descended from cruise altitude into the middle of a city, did NOT do all the things that airline pilots do to make the approach easy for themselves (i.e. get the speed down, get lined up from far out, get the plane into approach configuration, get radar guidance from the ground), and flew up Pensylvania Avenue at 400 miles per hour, making a slight nudge to the left at the end to face squaare on horizontally to the Pentagon wall ?

A second problem: I could take you up in a light aircraft and fly you from London to Birmingham and ask you to try to find the NEC from the air.

You would be bamboozled. From even 3000 feet in the air and at a pedestrian pace everything just looks the same, with built up areas merging seamlessly into each other and the surrounding countryside, you would be lost in about 2 minutes before you even got past Windsor.

From 33,000 feet, forget it without some formal flight planning, instrument guidance, co-ordination with the ground (not essential but helpful) etc.

These are the types of things that an air accident investigation gets to the bottom of - they play the tapes, they can find out exactly who did what and when, whether they were navigating visually or by instruments, whether they communicated with anyone during the flight - everything ! We would not be having this debate right now.

However the NTSB have been told NOT TO INVESTIGATE these flights. Here's a typical month in the life of the NTSB:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/AccList.asp?month=9&year=2001

Here's 11/9/2001:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20020123X00104&key=1

Of course there are eyewitnesses - they are just part of the whole jigsaw. If you saw a plane hurtling past you at 400 miles an hour and then heard on the news that it was a 757, you may also convince yourself that you saw a 757. I don't know what hit it or how, I just know that we're not allowed to know, only speculate or take the official word for it.

The Pentagon account is just like everything else in the 9-11 saga - it's theoretically possible but HIGHLY UNLIKELY. I've also been looking at a site called http://www.911myths.com which actually has a lot of useful information and corrections regarding 9/11 theories, however, they never address the real problem which is that we shouldn't be having this debate in the first place. The WTC saga is the same - lots of 'unique', theoretically possible but highly implausible causes given. No evidence or proof, where under normal circumstances, these would be routine investigations having all the evidence to hand and out in the open.

[Pikey]

Thanx for finally responding to my question CTS.

IMHO your response is irrational and absolute nonsense

[Pikey]

[ConspiracyTheorySceptic]

Pikey writes:

[ConspiracyTheorySceptic]

Pete J writes:

[kbo234]

CTS, you s.................
.................................
......................no, I can't be bothered.